Senate blocks Gitmo closing … again

posted at 3:31 pm on November 30, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

If you missed this last night, you’re not alone; hardly anyone seemed to notice that the Democratic-controlled Senate just blocked Barack Obama’s first-day decree to close the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center … again. A measure sponsored by Sen. Kelly Ayotte gained 54 votes and passed late last night that prevents any funding from being used to transfer Gitmo detainees to the US:

The Senate has passed a measure that prevents terrorist detainees from being transferred to facilities on U.S. soil, a day after it was revealed a prominent Democrat had commissioned a federal report to identify U.S. locations that may be suitable for housing Guantanamo prisoners.

The measure, which was introduced by Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., was approved by a vote of 54 to 41 late Thursday.

Carl Levin warned that Obama would veto the measure, but that wasn’t enough to keep some Democrats eyeballing their 2014 chances from making sure they went on the record as supporting Ayotte:

Current law denies suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens seized within the nation’s borders, the right to trial and subjects them to the possibility they would be held indefinitely. It reaffirms the post-Sept. 11 authorization for the use of military force that allows indefinite detention of enemy combatants.

Several Democrats vulnerable in the 2014 elections voted with Republicans on Ayotte’s measure.

The Boss Emeritus warns of a culture-of-corruption subtext to the effort to close Gitmo in her column today:

The first White House maneuver took place in October, while much of the public and the media were preoccupied with election news. On Oct. 2, Obama’s cash-strapped Illinois pals announced that the federal government bought out the Thomson Correctional Center in western Illinois for $165 million. According to Watchdog.Org, a recent appraisal put the value of the facility at $220 million.

Democratic Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin led the lobbying campaign for the deal, along with Illinois Democrat Gov. Pat Quinn, who is overseeing an overall $43 billion state budget deficit and scraping for every available penny. The Thomson campus has been an empty Taj Mahal for more than a decade because profligate state officials had no money for operations. Economic development gurus (using the same phony math of federal stimulus peddlers) claim the newly federalized project will bring in $1 billion.

Obama’s unilateral and unprecedented decision steamrolled over bipartisan congressional opposition to the purchase. That opposition dates back to 2009, when the White House first floated the idea of using Thomson to house jihadi enemy combatants detained in Cuba. As you may recall, the scheme caused a national uproar. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department’s budget, blocked the administration from using unspent DOJ funds for the deal. With bipartisan support, Congress passed a law barring the transfer of Gitmo detainees to Thomson or any other civilian prison.

The message was clear: Taxpayers doesn’t want manipulative Gitmo detainees or their three-ring circuses of transnationalist sympathizers and left-wing lawyers on American soil. Period.

Fox’s Bill Hemmer interviews former four-star General Jack Keane, a Vice Chief of Staff under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, to discuss the wisdom of closing Gitmo. Keane reminds viewers that these are not criminals but illegal enemy combatants in war — and that the length of the war hasn’t been our choice.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

No surprise that the woman who authored “In Defense of Internment” would be opposed to closing Gitmo. Let’s just hold people indefinitely and without trial. That’s the bedrock upon which we declared our independence.

What does it accomplish moving them state side anyway? Is it some sort of feel good thing in that the place the “evil” Bush opened will be closed thus generating love and kindness from those that hate us?

The detainees at Gitmo are undergoing trials. They’ve also all had hearings on their combat status.

If AQ declares an end to the war, they’ll be let go.

I have to say I’m a little bit troubled (yeah, a concern troll post) at the Senate interfering in the Commander in Chief’s decision. Isn’t this a military decision by the C-in-C during wartime?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favor of giving them civilian trials – which is what would happen if they were brought here. I’m just not sure that the Senate isn’t interfering with the President’s power.

But they’re not civilians – they’re combatants – and they weren’t captured on US soil.

To my knowledge, we’ve never given civilian trials before to any combatant captured overseas in any other war. They were either given military trials (ex parte Quirin) or held in detention (the hundreds of thousands of German soldiers held here during WWII).

Even the German soldiers captured here were given military trials.

Military tribunals afford enough protection for these types of combatants. Although we legally can hold them forever.

But they’re not civilians – they’re combatants – and they weren’t captured on US soil.

To my knowledge, we’ve never given civilian trials before to any combatant captured overseas in any other war. They were either given military trials (ex parte Quirin) or held in detention (the hundreds of thousands of German soldiers held here during WWII).

Even the German soldiers captured here were given military trials.

Military tribunals afford enough protection for these types of combatants. Although we legally can hold them forever.

I think we’ve fought this issue before. It’s settled to me.

SteveMG on November 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM

I really don’t care if the trials are civilian or military, as long as there are trials. Holding someone indefinitely without due process is totalitarian, and supporting it is immoral. Don’t you find it convenient that the tyrannical government who is “holding them forever” gets to decide that it’s legal to “hold them forever”? Doesn’t that give you any pause?

Don’t you find it convenient that the tyrannical government who is “holding them forever” gets to decide that it’s legal to “hold them forever”? Doesn’t that give you any pause?

Well, I understand that’s what international law says. That we can hold them until the end of hostilities. As you probably know, we’ve let some go back home. Or sent them home where they were eventually released (and some have gone back to attacking us).

We held German POWS for decades after the war, after the Nuremberg military tribunals and, of course, AFTER the war.

Let me ask you: If our soldiers in Afghanistan right now capture 10 Taliban fighters after a firefight do those Taliban fighters have the right to a civilian trial here? Do we need to bring them back here and give them full constitutional rights and a civilian trial?

You need to figure out a different word to use than “immoral”. There is no real connotation of it in your political belief system. They is either something that the majority considers an acceptable norm or not. No morality.

Let me ask you: If our soldiers in Afghanistan right now capture 10 Taliban fighters after a firefight do those Taliban fighters have the right to a civilian trial here? Do we need to bring them back here and give them full constitutional rights and a civilian trial?

SteveMG on November 30, 2012 at 5:08 PM

I couldn’t give two rips about international law. Holding German POWs for decades after the war, or even holding them after the war, is by no means rationalization or justification for doing it again. This is a common argument made when defending unconstitutional actions (“Well president so-and-so did it,” or “it’s been done for decades”).

They have a right to a trial, I don’t know that they’d get a fair one, but they have a right to a trial. No, it does not have to be on our soil. Yes, they have a right to due process. You do know, though, that Constitutional rights are not given; they are unalienable rights that are guaranteed.

You need to figure out a different word to use than “immoral”. There is no real connotation of it in your political belief system. They is either something that the majority considers an acceptable norm or not. No morality.

hawkdriver on November 30, 2012 at 5:10 PM

You don’t know anything about my belief system. Holding someone indefinitely without due process is totalitarian and immoral, and supporting it is immoral.

Actually Dante, we are being quite merciful. The other way to handle Unlawful Enemy Combatants under the Law of Land Warfeare is Battlefield Execution.

Would that make you feel better?

Old Dog on November 30, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Oh, of course. Indefinitely imprisoning someone is quite merciful. How gracious we are. Your use of capitalization really drives that point home.

The premise is entirely ridiculous, “unlawful enemy combatant” just rolls off the Orwellian tongue. “Hey! You can’t be an “enemy combatant”! Only we get to say who can or can’t be an enemy combatant, you law breaker!”

Rep Gomert from TX has the right idea. We have the best leverage in the world. Obama cannot get a nickel unless the House passes the bill. I repeat: Obama cannot get a nickel unless the House passes the bill. Submit a good bill, then tell O that unless he works with it, nada, nil, nothin. We are right where we were last year; I am not going to vote Repub unless the Boehner Boobs stand their ground. We may get beaten no matter what; but they can’t say we didn’t stand up and fight. Now if taxes are raised on the beloved middle class, it is because of O and he should not get any money. All we have now is bitter women, no speaka da English, rapper dappers, and odd men out running this country. Time to listen to Newt!!!!!

This closing GITMO meme is all downside to democrats. The minute they get civil trials will start the daily reminders to the public of the kind of characters the president’s party likes to accommodate. Each deluded and radical freak pleading his case will be a headline election issue for someone.

Every democrat standing or thinking of running will have to explain the sanity of trying (and releasing) known terrorists. The presidential clique, not concerned about elections, cares about these guys, so this would be a wedge issue if democrats allowed it to be.

I’m sure Durbin’s new prison can be used to manage Chicago’s existing
wave of crime and corruption.